Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
K34eie892s8's

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Scott Abernathy on May 23, 2002 19:58:35 UTC

"If you believe in the big bang, where did that 'cosmic egg' come from? Was there a begining in the evolutionary timescale? If there was, when was it? How did matter get there? Don't just tell my 'it was there
somehow' or 'we don't really know for sure' because that is not scientific either."

Once again you are showing your lack of understanding in the nature of science. I am not even close to being an expert in the field of cosmology so I cannot provide a viable explanation for you. The fact the we don't have all the evidence in place to explain the so called cosmic egg doesn't mean that the big bang theory is not scientific. Right now the cosmic red shift and the CMB (cosmic microwace background) are 'evidences' that support the big bang theory. Nobody has called it law - have they? To my knowledge it is just a theory, one that is supported with tangible, observable, empirical evidence. The fact remains that you are preoccupied with finding absolutes in science and they cannot be found. Absolutes are restricted to blind faith. You are absolutely sure that God exists, as I am. I am not absolutely sure the big bang theory is the best explanation of the beginning of the universe. It is the best theory we have at this time, because it is supported by observed data.

By saying we are not sure and we don't know all the answers is being scientific. By saying "God did it" is not being scientific. Why can't you see the difference. Saying that we are not sure about things and continue to look for new evidence is science. Your statements from your last post prove that you don't understand the nature of science. Yes you are just 16, but if you wish to argue irrational statements then you must be able to defend them logically.

"Thank you for your opinion on the whole entire field of science. However, I don't think you can speak for the whole scientific community. Do you?"

Actually... I believe I do. If there are other people out there who think my views of the nature of science are wrong then I wish you would find them. The nature of science is not up for debate. It is what it is. In today's society science is being abused because it is being used to generate profit rather than search for truth. I have a problem with this outlook of science, but I understand that society is full of idiots that don't get the true purpose of science. Yes, it is meant to better mankind, but not at the expense of the search for truth. Pure science could generate more discovery than profit driven science in my opinion - that is another topic though.

I feel confident enough to say that I do speak for the scientific community when I say that science cannot prove things only disprove them and provide evidence to support or revise existing theories. That is the bare bones of it all. Find someone to refute that and I will gladly listen to them.

Scott

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins